LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

In the final chapter of Harvard Professor Michael Sandel's 2020 book, The Tyranny of Merit, he suggests, "The injury that most animates the resentment of working people is to their status as producers… Only a political agenda that acknowledges this injury and seeks to renew the dignity of work can speak effectively to the discontent that roils our politics."

He writes about a sense that those without a Bachelor's degree feel adrift, stripped of their status as blue-collar jobs no longer provide job security, pay and benefits sufficient to be a breadwinner for one's family.

He ties this sense of economic and status insecurity to the election of Donald Trump and Brexit, but also more broadly to a sense that "A four-year degree has become the key marker of social status, as if there were a requirement for nongraduates to wear a circular scarlet badge bearing the letters BA crossed through by a diagonal red line".  He quotes Michael Young's observation as well that "'in a society that makes so much of merit' it is hard 'to be judged as having none.  No underclass has ever been left as morally naked as that'."

Sandel goes as far back as Aristotle, who "argued that human flourishing depends on realizing our nature through the cultivation and exercise of our abilities."  He also quotes Pope John Paul II as saying that "through work man 'achieves fulfillment as a human being'."

Yet, for me reading this book over a year into the COVID-19 pandemic shutdowns, it was particularly striking to think of the sense of being without a purpose in life, trapped at home unable to work.  We're all going a bit squirrely with our lives interrupted, our usual social activities curtailed.  But for the millions who find themselves unemployed or unable to go into work or running a business at reduced capacity with fewer staff, there is a devastating psychic impact to our sense of self.

Millions of Canadians can no longer hold to their status as employer — the woman or man who led the company and looked after their employees — or to their status as a valuable worker, responsible for making something with their hands or being an integral part of the operation.  Instead, millions are left to rely on government support, and find navigating the system perplexing.

Robert F. Kennedy suggested, "Unemployment means having nothing to do — which means having nothing to do with the rest of us.  To be without work, to be without use to one's fellow citizens, is to be in truth the Invisible Man of whom Ralph Ellison wrote."  RFK also said, "Fellowship, community, shared patriotism — these essential values of our civilization do not come from just buying and consuming goods together [but from] dignified employment at a decent pay, the kind of employment that lets a man say to his community, to his family, to his country, and most importantly, to himself, 'I helped to build this country.  I am a participant in great public ventures'."

As the economy begins to reopen hopefully this spring, we need to recognize this sense of alienation and loss of status.  "Building back better" does not simply mean investing in better infrastructure or a greener society.

It has to include real, meaningful recognition of the people lauded as frontline workers — the largely immigrant women who serve as personal support workers to the elderly and disabled, the sanitation engineers who keep the basic plumbing of society working, the minimum-wage workers who stock grocery shelves, the truck drivers and Amazon warehouse packers who get goods to their destination.

Whether through higher wages or better benefits, whether through some form of a basic income to provide granite beneath everyone's household budget (what we have already for seniors with our public pensions or children with our child benefits), the project of building back from COVID-19 has to recognize not only the dignity of work, but the need for society to give everyone a fair shot, yes, but also a new social contract that says categorically we will not let people slip below a certain, basic standard: that hard work will be rewarded with a sense of self, that everyone will have a basic floor.

The lesson of the pandemic has to be that as a society, we came together to ensure everyone had some form of a social safety net to catch them — and that such basic security cannot be limited to bad times, but should become a new foundation for us all.

Photo Credit: The Nova Scotia Advocate

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


When, at a recent party convention, Conservative delegates rejected adding the words "climate change is real" to their policy platform, I don't think they were really making a statement on the environment.

Instead, I think that vote was just their way of sticking it to the smug Canadian Establishment.

After all, believing that climate change is the biggest threat in history to mankind's (oops, sorry Justin I meant "Peoplekind's") future is one of the basic cornerstones of Establishment political thought.

Corporate billionaires, Hollywood celebrities and every trendy progressive politician on the planet, wants to make fighting climate change the number one issue of the world.

They do so because of "science" and because a Swedish teenager says they should.

So, what better way for conservatives to poke the ruling classes than by openly refusing to join the climate change chorus?

As Spanish novelist Carlos Ruiz Zafón once put it, "I swim against the tide because I like to annoy."

And yes, I'd argue being a contrarian, going against the grain, annoying Establishment bigwigs, is a big part of conservatism today.

Indeed, in my view, the Conservative Party of Canada has basically become a sanctuary or a haven, for contrarian refugees fleeing from all across the country and from all across the political spectrum.

In short, Canadians who are angry about the current system in this country, who don't think our national institutions are working for their benefit, or who feel they have no voice, have swelled the ranks of the Conservative Party.

And they're a disparate group: Western nationalists angry about Ottawa's imperialistic arrogance, right-wing populists who see themselves as front-line warriors in the battle against "cultural Marxists", libertarians disillusioned by the ever-growing size and scope of government, gun-owners who feel constantly under attack and disgruntled pro-lifers, many of whom have been exiled from the Liberal Party.

All these people feel like they're under siege and none of them want to play nice.

Thus, when given a chance to vote on the sacred cow of climate change, they gleefully gored the beast.

If that makes them look less respectable in the eyes of the mainstream media, then so be it.

All of this, of course, presents a strategic problem for Conservative Party leader Erin O'Toole.

Keep in mind, even though the Conservative Party is teeming with angry ideological rebels, its inner core, its "Old Guard", its Red Tory base, along with its professional consultant class, are all still very much pro-Establishment.

They're the ones who want to jump on the climate change bandwagon, they're the ones who want to placate the media, they're the ones who want to get along to go along.

Needless to say, having two such groups dwelling within the same party can lead to tension.

How could it not?

The contrarian rebels within the party want to upend up the system and topple the ruling elites, while the "go alongers" simply want to take what they consider to be their rightful place among the elites.

O'Toole's challenge as leader is to keep both sides happy.

This is a difficult task, but it's doable.

Indeed, while running for the leadership of the party, O'Toole managed to play a careful balancing act, he branded himself as tough enough to satisfy the contrarian crowd, but not so tough that he'd scare off the Red Tory brigades.

But after he won the Conservative Crown, O'Toole decided to switch gears; he began to openly side with the party's pro-Establishment wing; he wanted to lead a more respectable party, one that bowed to at least some major elements of Establishment opinion, such as climate change.

This, needless to say, meant the contrarians within his party would need to fall in line and smooth away all their rough edges.

This is why he tried to push and cajole and sweet talk them into supporting the climate change motion at the Conservative Party convention.

He failed, and no wonder.

Asking contrarian conservatives to support the climate change agenda would be like asking Boston Red Sox fans to start cheering for the New York Yankees.

And the fact that O'Toole didn't foresee his failure, that he didn't grasp the psychological imperatives of members of his own party, does not bode well for his leadership skills.

Photo Credit: CBC News

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


There was a major political storm created last week by over-the-top rhetoric from a University of Ottawa professor, Amir Attaran, about racism in Quebec.  This is not a column about him, however.  Frankly, the views of a professor, unknown to the majority of Quebecers before this week, no matter how outrageous, over-the-top or ridiculous they may seem, should not be a matter of national concern.

For readers unaware, Prof. Attaran has used Twitter to call Quebec a "Failed Nation" and "the Alabama of the North".  He said Premier François Legault was a "White Supremacist".  He made it clear that when he faced racism, more often than not it started with 'bonjour'.  When challenged, Attaran doubles down.  That's always been his style: he takes no prisoners and doesn't care much about nuance when it comes to defending his opinions and getting noticed.

Yet tons of ink has been spilled on Attaran over the past week, and on the political reaction that his hot take created.  That is true especially in Quebec, or dare I say mostly in Quebec, where Attaran is now Public Enemy #1.  Every day for the past week, you can read about him in the Quebec media.  At least two dozen columns denouncing Attaran as a francophobe, a Quebecophobe and even a racist.  Some are even accusing him of hate speech.  And not only from the usual suspects from the Quebecor Empire, mind you.  Every single media outlet has covered the issue and its aftermath, every single newspaper has published column after column.  The unanimity has been striking.

And of course, Quebec politicians have seized the issue.  And there, also, unanimity.  And this is where it gets interesting and perhaps worrisome.  Attaran has hit a nerve a nerve which will be hit again.  Because this whole debate shows that Quebec might be on a collision course with the rest of Canada.  Lots of it has to do with culture, lots of it has to do with conceptual definitions and the very scope of these definitions.

Bottom line: there is a growing divide between Canada's multiculturalism and Quebec's version of it, often referred to as interculturalism.  Both have similar values, like freedom, equality and tolerance.  But they seem to lead to very different conclusions.

It also leads to misunderstandings and a complete lack of dialogue.  That was on full display when NDP leader Jagmeet Singh and PQ leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon were together on "Tout le monde en parle", the most popular public affairs show in Quebec.  They were together, but they might as well have been on different planets.

When individuals decide to proceed with brushing the entire Quebec society as a whole with insults, Quebecers will react.  Strongly.  The skin is getting thin, too.  Even Quebec Solidaire, despite having strong views on racism and anti-colonialism, supported a unanimous motion at the Salon Bleu of the National Assembly, a motion which denounced the "the frequent hateful, discriminatory and Francophobic attacks against the Quebec nation within Canada, particularly in light of recent events at the University of Ottawa".

Now, don't get me wrong.  The CAQ government is refusing to acknowledge systemic racism.  It should be called on it.  The government has adopted legislation to ban religious symbols, Bill 21, that is facing numerous judicial challenges.  And rightly so.  Yet, the Bill has 65% support in Quebec.  If, despite the preventive use of the notwithstanding clause by the Legault government, the law is struck down by the Courts, things could go south very quickly.

Truth be told, support for Quebec separation is so low and prospects of a referendum so remote, pollsters have stopped measuring it regularly.  Quebec Solidaire is splitting the separatist vote with the Parti Québécois, which has been reduced to a third party.  But the traditional federalist party, the Quebec Liberals, are also at an historic low, hanging on to their West Island bastion.

Which leaves the Coalition Avenir Quebec, which has scooped up the francophone pro-business vote, the soft nationalists, the sub-urban middle class and everyone else in between.  Despite an abysmal COVID-19 record, François Legault remains very popular, with approval ratings through the roof throughout the pandemic and voting intentions showing his government well on track for another, even stronger, majority.  The CAQ's electoral coalition is solid and it has room to grow.

In Legault's entourage, they are not upset about outbursts like Attaran's or the support he is getting from many ROC corners.  Politically, anything that stirs the nationalism of Quebecers seems good to them, I was told.  The CAQ will reap the benefits.

This is why Justin Trudeau was quick to react and call for an end to Quebec-bashing.  We've seen this movie before and it could happen again.  When Justin Trudeau is siding with François Legault and the PQ on Quebec identity issues, you know things just got serious.

Not since Jacques Parizeau came within half a point of succeeding in 1995, or even since post-Meech Robert Bourassa, when support for separation was over 70%, has anyone been in a better position than François Legault to convince a majority of Quebecers that Quebec, as a nation and as society, has tried everything to work within Canada and has reached the point of no return.

Separatism is dormant in Quebec.  Could it be waking up?

Photo Credit: National Post

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.